[Libreoffice-qa] How to change QA processes: was: What should we do with bugs filed against Extensions/Templates?
pmladek at suse.cz
Tue Apr 9 01:49:48 PDT 2013
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 18:04 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I am personally not completely happy with the proposed solution but I
> will explain this in another mail. I would like to keep this one focused
> on the way how we change and define QA processes.
I think that Rainer's solution described at
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA-FAQ#How_to_handle_bugs_for_LibreOffice_Component_Extension is correct and it is the only way what we could do now.
My concerns is that it is not trivial, there is the man in the middle
and still some risky states:
+ it is not easy to find the author
+ it is not easy to find if the author did not answered or if the bug
triagger just did not update the bug
+ I am not sure what to do with the bug if the author accepts it but
does not subscribe to bugzilla and does not upload the fixed
extensions immediately. This bug could stay there forever or
could get closed without being fixed.
I think that we could do better by the ideas mentioned earlier in this
thread. I tried to summarize them in two enhancement requests (one is
Activate Issue tracker URL
This enhancement would solve two problems:
+ mark extensions supported by bugzilla FDO (TDF)
+ use the right bug tracker when available
allow to enter feedback to the extensions; public or only for authors
This would allow to handle bugs in extensions that are not supported
by TDF without the man in the middle. We could ask people to contact
the author and simply close the bugs in bugzilla.
I think that this would be more effective and clear.
I hope that it solves all concerns mentioned in this thread except for
the banners about support level. Well, I am not sure if it is a good
idea from the marketing point of view:
+ users will be scared to install extensions without support but
these might simply work
+ frank developers might have troubles to promise good support but
the extensions might simply work; these developers would be
afraid to develop extensions for LO
+ some other developer might promise the support but they need not
have time to provide it; so, the flag would be misleading; I am
not sure how to judge this
By other words, I think that the flag could do more harm than good :-)
I hope that we could close this thread now and continue the discussion
in the enhancement bugs. Heh, the exception might be the banner.
Also feel free to open even more enhancement bugs in this are. There is
also the meta bug https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63297 :-)
More information about the Libreoffice-qa